Technology & Innovation - Issue 12

BUYER BEWARE Rich Newsome highlights the hidden risks of public sector frameworks in education procurement P ublic sector frameworks are often seen as a shortcut for schools, academies, and trusts. They promise an easier way of buying software and services that cuts down on paperwork, while providing a sense of reassurance that suppliers are pre-approved and compliant. On the surface, that sounds ideal. But as many school leaders are discovering, frameworks aren’t always as straightforward as they seem. Some come with restrictive terms, hidden risks and unintended consequences that can leave schools worse off. In fact, relying too heavily on frameworks can sometimes limit choice, push up costs and even compromise fairness in procurement. Here, we’ll explore the benefits and perils of public sector frameworks in education. We’ll look at why some frameworks work well, why others don’t, and at what schools should watch out for before committing to one route. Why schools turn to frameworks It’s easy to see the appeal of frameworks. Procurement can be time-consuming and resource-heavy, especially if you’re leading a large MAT withmultiple schools to support. Writing a full tender document, evaluating suppliers and running a formal process takes time and expertise that many schools simply don’t have. Frameworks promise to make life easier. They’re marketed as ready-made, compliant routes to procurement that give you access to a pool of vetted suppliers. They also provide a level of comfort; if a supplier is on a framework, they must have met certain standards, right? In some cases, frameworks really do help. Crown Commercial Service’s G-Cloud, for instance, provides a centralised marketplace for cloud-based services. It makes it easier for schools and other public sector organisations to compare suppliers, understand pricing and avoid lengthy negotiations. For straightforward software needs, frameworks like G-Cloud can save time and reduce complexity. Where frameworks fall short The challenge is that not all frameworks are created equal. While some are designed with fairness and balance inmind, others can include terms that place disproportionate risk on suppliers. When that happens, many providers may choose not to participate. And when suppliers walk away, schools are the ones who lose out. Take Everything ICT as an example. On paper, it looks like a simple, broad procurement route. But in practice, the contractual obligations are far more restrictive thanmost suppliers would usually accept. These include: • Broad and potentially uncapped indemnities that go well beyond standard risk-sharing • Annual liability caps that can exceed typical contractual limits • Perpetual IP licensing rights granted to customers, extending beyond normal usage • Escrow requirements (where suppliers cover setup and storage costs) • Step-in rights that allow the customer to take over delivery at the supplier’s expense This might all sound highly technical, but the implications are simple –many reputable providers won’t sign up to terms like these. The result? Schools limiting themselves to a smaller pool of suppliers, without even realising it. A good illustration of this came from a local authority in Cardiff. They’d got a considerable way through a framework procurement exercise for a school MIS and finance via Everything ICT, only to face a challenge from the incumbent supplier, which wasn’t on the framework because of the framework’s restrictive terms and conditions. The authority eventually had to restart the process, and eventually went through the Kent County Council (KCC) framework instead. That shift effectively ruled out both Access Education and Compass – even though both were bidding, initially – and limited the final options available to the authority’s schools. What thismeans for schools and trusts The danger of restrictive frameworks isn’t just theoretical. It has real consequences for schools and trusts, the first being reduced choice: If suppliers opt out, schools miss out on solutions that might have otherwise been a better fit for their needs. Restrictive frameworks also limit competition, since “Don’t assume that a framework is automatically the‘best’or‘only’ route” 46 teachwire.net